Last July the Government decided to transfer responsibility for local development and related matters from the Department of the Taoiseach to the newly created Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation. My Department's mandate covers some of the core areas of local development, all of which have a common goal — social inclusion.
Key elements in the mandate include the following —to implement the operational programme for local, urban and rural development; to implement the EU urban initiative; to co-ordinate local development initiatives and prepare for the post-1999 transition to an integrated local development and local government system; to co-ordinate overall Government policy on local development through chairing the interdepartmental policy group on local development; to promote the integrated development of the most disadvantaged urban communities by ensuring their needs are addressed on a priority and co-ordinated basis in conjunction with area partnership companies and by relevant public agencies and to take responsibility for the national drugs strategy team.
I intend to focus on those areas for which I have specific responsibility, namely local development and the national anti-drugs strategy. I refer to the issue of drugs. I have been given responsibility for the co-ordination of the Government's overall strategy to reduce demand for illegal drugs. The previous Government's strategy to deal with the problem of drugs demand was developed in two reports prepared by a ministerial task force chaired by my constituency colleague, Deputy Rabbitte. I will first comment on one aspect of the Government's approach which not so much differs from that of the previous Administration, but rather reflects a different emphasis.
The link between drug abuse and social and economic disadvantage is well documented and it is universally agreed that the only effective long-term solution to the drugs problem is in the area of prevention. The emphasis is on responding to the drugs problem in the context of dealing with the wider issue of social exclusion. This emphasis is reflected in two key policy decisions made since the change of Government. First, by placing responsibility for co-ordinating the drug strategy in the same Department as that of local development and sport, the Government has signalled its intention to place considerable emphasis on prevention rather than cure. Second, the Cabinet drugs committee, established on foot of a recommendation in the first ministerial task force report, has now been reconstituted into a wider Cabinet committee dealing with social inclusion, local development and drugs.
In addition to the national drug strategy, this committee considers issues pertaining to local development policy and the national anti-poverty strategy. The committee aims to ensure that the considerable resources being expended on tackling social exclusion are co-ordinated and properly targeted.
A national drug strategy team has been set up to ensure the effective implementation of the Government strategy to reduce drugs demand. Under the revised arrangements, following the change of Government, this team reports directly to me. The team effectively replicates at the centre the partnership approach of the local drug task forces which have been set up in the areas worst hit by the drugs scourge. The team comprises representatives of relevant Government Departments and State agencies with two persons from the voluntary and community sectors. It operates on the principle set out in the strategic management initiative for tackling issues which cut across a number of Government Departments or agencies. The SMI approach involves a team effort towards achieving the desired result, in this case a reduction in drugs demand rather than leaving each Department or agency to its own devices.
Local drug task forces have been established in Dublin and on the north side of Cork city. They were set up to bring together relevant statutory agencies with representatives of the community and local voluntary organisations to develop a locally based response to the drugs problem. The establishment of the task forces was a recognition of the need to target efforts and resources in a number of key areas where the drugs problem is prevalent, to integrate drug service provision in these areas and to give local communities a real and meaningful say in the development and delivery of strategies to tackle drug abuse in their areas. The involvement of local communities in the process is important for a number of reasons. It draws on their vast knowledge and experience of the local drugs problem and more importantly, it gives the people most affected by the problem the opportunity to make a positive contribution towards resolving it. I am conscious that the sheer scale of the drugs problem in some areas has led to a feeling of abandonment in the local community, a crisis of confidence in the institutions of the State and wider society.
The spirit of community which traditionally has been a strong feature of life in many of these areas has been severely tested and, in some instances, replaced by fear, anger and frustration. It is our intention that these communities, assisted by agencies such as the health board and Dublin Corporation will be given the support to develop their own local approach to the drugs problem. Thirteen task forces were set up in Dublin and Cork city. Each of these has prepared an action plan to tackle the drugs problem in its area and funding of £10 million has been provided to implement the plans. The plans contain a broad range of strategies combining elements of treatment, rehabilitation and prevention. Many of the plans contain strategies which place emphasis on the development of youth and sport activities, to which I will refer later.
Recognising that communities can play a positive role in assisting the Garda and other statutory agencies in curbing the supply of drugs locally, a number of plans also include proposals for a local response to the supply issue. The various strategies have been tailored to reflect the local situation and to meet the needs of each area but at the same time to conform to the principles of best practice.
Many of the plans contain innovative ways of dealing with the drugs problem. It is proposed to initiate a number of these proposals on a pilot basis and, if successful, to integrate them into mainstream services. In some instances drug services will be developed on a partnership basis between the statutory and voluntary and community sectors. In other cases, specific agencies will take the lead in delivering particular aspects of the overall strategy.
Many of the plans contain proposals to fill gaps in current service provision which can occur when a number of agencies have separate responsibilities for different aspects of the problem. One example of such a gap arises in relation to the case of treatment services for drug misusers who come into contact with the criminal justice system. As responsibility for their welfare transfers from agency to agency, there is a real danger that they may slip through the net due to the lack of an appropriate tracking system. Equally, agencies such as FÁS and the local employment service, whose primary objective is to create job opportunities for the unemployed, are often not structured adequately to cater for the specific needs of rehabilitated drug misusers in their attempts to obtain employment. These are some examples of issues which are being addressed by the task forces on a multi-disciplinary basis.
Efforts are also being made to eliminate duplication among agencies delivering drug programmes and services with a view to achieving better cost effectiveness. It is hoped this can be done by pooling and making better use of existing resources. I hope Deputies will have gleaned from this short description of the contents of the plans prepared by the task forces the tremendous contribution which they can make to tackling the drugs problems in their respective areas.
A number of plans contained strategies which placed emphasis on the development of youth and sport activities. In his Budget Statement the Minister for Finance announced the Government's intention to set aside £1.25 million for a youth services development fund to come into operation from next year. This fund will focus on the development of services for young people in disadvantaged areas where there is a significant drugs problem. While the scheme will be administered through the youth services section of the Department of Education and Science, arrangements are being made to ensure it is effectively integrated with the strategies being developed by the local drugs task forces. Payments will be made on the recommendation of the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and drugs, at which I represent the interests of the drug strategy team. The detailed arrangements for the administration of this fund are being finalised and will be announced shortly.
Disadvantaged areas including those with a significant drug problem will also benefit from a variety of other measures announced in the budget. These include the continuing and increased commitments in relation to the targeting of sports initiatives for young people in areas of disadvantage, a community development programme of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, community based projects by the Probation and Welfare Service of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the proposed tax relief scheme for schools in disadvantaged areas.
Local development is about engaging and harnessing the energies of local communities which are a tremendous resource in themselves. They represent a huge pool of creativity, intelligence and dynamism. That is a resource we can use or lose. We can bring it into the system or we can lock it out. If we lock it out everybody loses.
Local development policy is about devising and supporting programmes and structures which allow the great untapped resources of our local community to be developed and applied to meeting the challenges facing them.
I cannot over emphasise the importance of involving local communities as partners in the local development process. Since area based partnerships were first introduced on a pilot basis in 1991 there has been much evidence to suggest that this approach works to benefit communities in need.
My Department oversees the implementation of the operational programme for local, urban and rural development. It is also involved with the implementation of the European Union's Urban initiative. These programmes represent the foundations upon which community support frameworks, such as the area partnerships, can be built. It should be noted that the local urban and rural development programme has exceeded all expectations in its job creation achievements. At the end of June this year over 16,900 additional jobs had been created and almost 4,000 new businesses were established.
The involvement of the social partners as equal participants is vital to the success of the action programmes initiated. These include the creation of employment opportunities, education and training initiatives and community development projects. Some of our most socially excluded, the education under-achievers, early school leavers and the long-term unemployed, are targeted by these programmes. We know the outcome of self-perpetuating, long-term unemployment and disadvantage is stigmatised in depressed and marginalised communities. No society can be at peace with itself in the face of such exclusion. That is why social inclusion must continue to be at the heart of local development policy.
Over the past five or six years we have been engaged in a major experiment in local development. This has generated a large number of groups, programmes and project initiatives. Over the next year we will have to examine the best and most useful elements of the local development process. In this examination, it is the needs of the people which must be paramount, not the vested interests of organisations. We want to preserve what is most useful to the people in local communities. We will then have to work to ensure these elements are preserved and strengthened in the post-1999 context.
We must also examine the local development experience to see what can be mainstreamed into the work of various Departments and agencies. Our experience in local development has taught us the value of listening to our own people and of engaging the creativity and intelligence of local people in tackling challenges which confront them. Even in the most disadvantaged communities, we have seen that engaging local people in the process of tackling their own problems can result in meaningful change. There are many schemes, agencies, Departments, State supported organisations, etc. supplying services which impact on local development. Despite this, we continue to have severe social problems in many localities. I conclude from this that the real needs of some of the most disadvantaged communities are not being met and the State may not be getting best value for money. It suggests there is an urgent need for better targeting and integration in the delivery of State supported services in areas of great disadvantage. There is a need for greater co-ordination and better use of existing resources.
There has been an increasing acceptance of the need for improved co-ordination across the State funded sector. We have seen experiments under programmes like Operation Dóchas, the drugs task force initiatives and the area partnerships, and we sought to involve local communities in a more meaningful way. There have been initiatives also to tackle certain problems in a more integrated fashion, yet there is no one programme which attempts to integrate all of the State funded services which are being or should be delivered to disadvantaged areas. In short, there has been no model to allow for a co-ordinated, properly targeted, community informed blitz of the most disadvantaged areas with the full range of State services. This is where the real gap arises and this is the gap we must close.
That is the reason the budget contains provision for the funding of a pilot project aimed at developing a model to secure the integrated delivery of State funded services in a number of areas of severe social disadvantage. This pilot project will be overseen by the Interdepartmental Policy Committee on Local Development, which I chair. It will focus on areas of around 2,500 to 5,000 households and will build on the valuable experience gained by area partnerships and similar groups with whom we will work closely. By securing greater co-ordination and integration of the range of State services, it will help to strengthen the effectiveness of the partnership process. If the pilot project is to be effective, we will have to cut through old traditions of non consultation, non co-operation and non co-ordination. This process is fully supported by the Cabinet committee on social exclusion.
In this budget the Government is addressing the issues of exclusion, marginalisation and poverty. It is clear that tackling disadvantage in areas of high unemployment is a major priority. The Government is determined State agencies must be active, flexible and willing participants in the process of tackling social inclusion. This means defining and supporting a culture of partnership and participation and a willingness to listen, especially to those who have genuine needs. The budget is clearly showing a commitment to a more co-ordinated and integrated delivery of services to disadvantaged communities. The Government's commitment can be seen through the commitment in the budget of a further £282 million to social inclusion measures. This means that the Government has already exceeded its commitments under Partnership 2000 and has done so in two rather than three years. Nothing could be a greater indication of the Government's commitment to tackling the issue of social inclusion. I commend the budget to the House.